Beilue: Compromise is the way to lose an election

In this Oct. 16 file photo, President Barack Obama, left, and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney confront each other during the second presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.

Related Stories

The good news: The presidential election will be over Tuesday. The bad news: Not much will change.

On Wednesday, the country still will be divided almost down the middle, the Republicans still will control the House, the Democrats still will control the Senate, and President Barack Obama will be back in the Oval Office.

“If that happens, you’ll see a continuation of a political food fight,” said Brian Farmer, professor of politics, government and social studies at Amarillo College.

The political air in Washington has been especially toxic the last four years, and will only get worse — each side digging in their heels, lots of rhetoric, lots of finger-pointing, nothing done.

That’s especially true if Obama is re-elected. He likely will be in a tight race where he might lose the popular vote in an outcome that will be anything but a mandate. It’s not so much Obama as it is the party that’s in the Oval Office is not the party in power in Congress. Neither side will give an inch.

“If Obama is re-elected, it’s going to be hard to hit the reset button and erase the last four years,” said Dr. Reed Welch, head of the department of political science at West Texas A&M University.

There’s a perception the political gulf in the country is wider than it has been in a long time, but it’s probably not true. Social media, where anyone can argue, stump or pass on misinformation, has made it seem that way. Vietnam in the 1960s and early ’70s and the New Deal in the ’30s were hugely divisive, more so than Obamacare.

But what is true is the two-party chasm in Congress is greater than ever before. And if there is change in the next four years, it’s to only get wider. The two-party system is healthy because, in theory, it keeps power in check.

Once upon a time, there was still an understanding of give-and-take, of middle ground, of working toward the same goal while agreeing to disagree. Now there’s only rancor, mistrust and disgust.

“You don’t want to be seen as someone who works with the other side,” Welch said. “There’s a candidate for Congress in Indiana, and his quote is, ‘I don’t compromise. I win. Compromise means you lose.’”

Congress has never been Kumbaya around the campfire, nor should it, but in the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, they could disagree on 80 percent of issues, but put aside partisan politics for a crucial 20 percent.

Those days are long gone. How did we get that way? Many little reasons, all of which add up. Farmer points to the social shift in the parties, remembering the 1970s when there were still some liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats who worked together more often.

He cites the end of the 38-year Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which ended the equal time policy on political views. That paved the way for Limbaugh and others, and the slant of MSNBC and Fox News for what once passed as objective coverage.

Then there’s the “persuadable voters,” which have shrunk to 3 to 7 percent, Farmer said. A Republican strategist in 2004 said because of that, it was better to fire up the hard-core base for voter turnout than move to the middle and play it safe.

WT political science professor Dave Rausch said many in Congress jet home for the weekend now rather than remain in Washington, where they used to socialize across the aisle for dinner or cards. Compromise, he said, takes work.

“Compromise is viewed by Congress as a way to lose the next primary election,” Farmer said.

But really, in this political landscape, why move across the aisle, unless it’s to get in someone’s face? Gerrymandered safe seats are throughout Congress.

“If you’re Mac Thornberry (R-Clarendon), what’s the benefit of working with the Democrats?” Welch said. “His challenge will be working with them too much, that he’s not Republican enough. Now multiply that over a couple of hundred similar situations with both parties.”

Said Farmer: “The likelihood that Thornberry would lose to another Republican in the primary is much higher than losing to a Democrat in the general election. His only fear is a Ted Cruz-type rises up in his district, a guy that’s viewed by the base as more conservative than he is.”

To be fair, Obama and the Dems have been no more willing to throw out the olive branch than the GOP.

“Politicians do what is in their best interest,” Welch said. “If they think it’s in their best interest to cut across party lines, they’ll do it. If not...”

Our elected officials’ decisions are governed by one overriding principle — how to stay elected. In this climate, that’s done by digging in your heels.

Jon Mark Beilue is a Globe-News columnist. He can be reached at jon.beilue@amarillo.com or 806-345-3318. His blog appears on amarillo.com. Follow him on Twitter: @jonmarkbeilue.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Beilue, We all know that for repubs to compromise on anything is against their principals due to the black man in office. When they gained the majority in the house their first rule was to make Obama, a one term president per Mitch McConnell, to vote against any bill put forth by dems or to ignore them.

The repubs had no intentions of doing anything the dems would find beneficial for the country. They then go on to say that Obama should have fixed all of our problems while he had a dem congress. Yup, 2 years is plenty time to fix what the repubs have wrecked for the previous 8 years. Then we get 2 more years of opposition, and its still Obama’s fault.

The repubs 11th hour decisions managed to bring down our credit rating but I guess that was Obama’s fault also.

When will these childlike, rightwingnut opinions cease? The teabaggers at least have the guts to show themselves as racists.

Most of what Beilue says is spot on but for one little misconception -- can you name a single Congressional dem who has said "I will never compromise?"Can you name one dem who has been defeated in a democratic primary because he/she has sought compromise in order to benefit the country? I suppose there might be one, but my point is still valid. The repubs and their T-P base are so firmly entrenched in their ideology that compromise is out of the question. And Senate candidate Michael Cruz is a perfect example.

Thank you for your usual common sense column. So sad you Had to be edited, and say that the Democrats have made no attempt to compromise. I realize you did not write that paragraph. If you objected you would be replaced. At least You know how to compromise, working in a den of moron puppets run by (Morris the cat?). I know you don't read, these stupid comments, and that is good. But, I am sure one of your Zombie co-workers will bring this up to you, because you said things that Rush Limbo would never say. P.S. I really love to bait the people who love to pass on the BS of the Party of NO. I only come here for that, and while waiting for my 4:00AM paper that comes sometimes at 11:30 AM. What a Paper!!!

Republicans in Congress CANNOT compromise. They have taken the pledge to a man who isn’t elected by the people but who has money (power/free speech). No new taxes. Of course, if they don’t compromise, we will get new taxes through their failure to compromise. The top 2% will be hurt far less than the 98% but that’s just the way the cookie crumbles when money is speech.

And Mitch McConnell puts country first, Merlin?
That is exactly what I fear, CG. No matter who wins the election nothing will happen. We will be without leadership and still in trench warfare. Washington will remain meaningless, a ship with no captain or rudder by design by both parties.

"When will these childlike, rightwingnut opinions cease?" That one sentence above may be the funniest line I've read recently given the three paragraphs above it are opinions as well. Hello Pot, I'm Kettle, and your black.

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and chief author (1794): ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

mimsey, logicrules, YoDaddy why should republicans compromise their principles (they at least have principles) to "get along" with those who want to create a dictatorship in this country? the democrats' only principle is to get power by any means, fair or foul, and use every means, fair or foul, to hold on to it. That has been perfectly exemplified in the last four years.

And despite the true racists' (democrats') claims, this has nothing to do with the color of obama's skin. It is solely due to his arrogance, his ignoring and acting against the constitution, and his complete and utter lack of any kind of transparency.

The downgrade in the credit rating was solely due to Obama's (and the democrats' ) intransigency in not cutting spending in those areas that demand to be cut--the totally unconstitutional spending on any kind of welfare, none of which has ever been authorized by any part of the Constitution.

Yhmil said: "why should republicans compromise their principles (they at least have principles) to 'get along' with those who want to create a dictatorship in this country? the democrats' only principle is to get power by any means, fair or foul, and use every means, fair or foul, to hold on to it."

Until Republicans achieve the dictatorship THEY want, they should expect to compromise to get anything done. However, I know they answer to their masters in Big Business.

The Republicans don't need to "get along with" Democrats. They need to do something ALONG WITH Democrats to advance the interests of the people of the United States. Someone should tell them that. They have been hell-bent on denying Obama any accomplishments

I agree with your second statement if you mistakenly put "democrats'" instead of Republicans.

Obviously, the Founding Fathers intended compromise because they built mechanisms for it into the Constitution, such as the extent of a majority needed to pass something.

With 4 senators and 20 in the house, you could run this country. It is already that way with the moderates, they get whatever they want for their vote. A third party is the only way you are going to change politics in this country.

Well that's the way it should be. If I remember right the credit rating was caused because the balance was not there, dems wanted more money without the balance, so why should reps just keep giving in. You keep eating donuts, eventually you won't be able to get out of the door you so big. Wait, isn't that evident from the national dept now.
And the top two percent is what hires the next 98 percent that follows. So if you do hurt the top 2 percent, then they can only hire 90 percent. Then there's 8 percent who have to take from the 90 percent still working for the 2 percent.
And referring to the last 8 yrs of Bush is just crazy, without 4 yrs of obama afterwords, you still going to refer to that in twenty yrs," 8 years of Bush plus 4, or admit obama added to the dept plus some. No matter what any one says, dems and reps have to think different or it would be a communist state with 251 dictators running the show. I personal think reps and dems should work together for the people, but we have voted into office, lawyers and politicians, which are only for themselves or friends.. not us!

Mr. Beilue talks about a "two-party system" the way one would discuss the "separation of powers." The truth is, there is no two-party "system," we're just stuck with two powerful parties at the expense of meaningful participation by a third, fourth, or n-th party. To say that "the two-party system is healthy because, in theory, it keeps power in check," is to speak in ignorance. Who says it's a system? And who says it's healthy? Wouldn't a three, four, or five party "system" be even healthier, as more voices and more options would be presented?

Time for a civics lesson, Mr. Beilue: there is not "two-party system." But unfortunately for the electorate, everyone acts as though there is.